quote:WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 (UPI) -- Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told his top military commanders last week that the Iranian nuclear program remained "the gravest danger to Israel's existence in the future. This is because Iran calls for Israel's annihilation. We must do our utmost, under U.S. guidance, to delay or eliminate the prospect of the extremist regime securing weapons of this sort."

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

I think the biggest threat to regional peace is Israel's nuclear program because it's the only one. I don't think anyone should have nukes, but what if something positive came out of Iran's nuclear program. Maybe the 2 sides will sit down and have real peace talks this time. It has been proven throughout history.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged

Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 October 2003 03:31 PM

quote: What's your definition of extremist?

Not too long ago, Pakistan would be called extremist. I notice that the Pakistanis haven't unleashed their nuclear arsenal on anyone yet. Could it be that our definition of extremist is somewhat biased by our culture and our media? Perhaps there is not a line of madmen leading these so-called extremist countries, just waiting to unleash armegeddon upon the world. Maybe the principle of MAD has kept the wielders of nuclear weapons from using their weapons?

That said, persuing nuclear weapons makes for an insane defense policy. The fact that you must poison your own environment to test them is proof enough of their insanity. I am in no hurry to see new countries join the nuclear club.

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 14 October 2003 04:06 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mishei:Nonsense

Hardly - a state born of a massive ethnic cleansing, that has undeclared nuclear weapons, has aggressively attacked several of its neighbours (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria) has a discriminatory ruling ideology, keeps over one million people hostage in a military occupation, has expanding colonial settlements, stands in contravention of countless UN resolutions, regularly violates international law....

quote:Originally posted by worker_drone:Which state is that again Courage?

Are you being sarcastic, or are you not too swift?
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged

Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 14 October 2003 05:12 PM

quote:Originally posted by Courage:

Hardly - a state born of a massive ethnic cleansing, that has undeclared nuclear weapons, has aggressively attacked several of its neighbours (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria) has a discriminatory ruling ideology, keeps over one million people hostage in a military occupation, has expanding colonial settlements, stands in contravention of countless UN resolutions, regularly violates international law....

What else do you need to do to be 'extreme'?

I guess you just have to be Muslim, eh Mishei?

Israel was born of a defensive war in which a small group of Sabres, immigrants and Holocaust survivors took on the combined might of the entire Arab empire in a fight for survival. That they survived was a miracle.

Any attacks on neighbors were by and large justified as self defence and you know it.. Oh yes you will paint it otherwise but the Middle east is not North America and borders are so close that there is enough blame to go around all the way around.

Israel's nuclear capacity is well known albeit, I agree undeclared.

Your rhetoric is as always over the top. We will agree to disagree on why the Palestinians are still under occupation. In my books there were at least 3 opportunities for statehood all of which were refused. I deplore the occupation and would love for Israel to get out NOW. There must be some reciprocol movement from the PA in stopping terror at the very least. All this said your attempt to paint the situation as all Israel's fault is as usual ridiculous.

quote:Originally posted by Mishei:Israel was born of a defensive war in which a small group of Sabres, immigrants and Holocaust survivors took on the combined might of the entire Arab empire in a fight for survival. That they survived was a miracle.

We were talking on another thread about quasi-religious founding mythologies, and...ladies and gentlemen (DRUMROLL)...here's a prime example. This idea persists in many Zionist minds in spite of the facts admitted by mainstream Israeli military historians, official IDF documentation, and the post-Zionist historians. The IDF outnumbered, were better equipped, and better organised than the Arab armies. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good 'miracle'?

quote: Any attacks on neighbors were by and large justified as self defence and you know it.. Oh yes you will paint it otherwise but the Middle east is not North America and borders are so close that there is enough blame to go around all the way around.

What a load. There is blame to be had for all, but a great amount can be dropped on Israel's door. When 'self defense' includes bombing, for example, the nuclear facility of Iraq, who Israel was not at war with, it loses all sense or credibility as a concept. You want to talk about 'painting'? Israel often claims 'self-defense' and it seems you've bought their line wholecloth. Some of us aren't so easily duped. "If the Israeli Minitrue says so...." Feh.

posted 15 October 2003 12:54 AM
Actually, its all Jordan's fault. The Jordanians seized the whole eastern 2/3 of the original mandate of Palestine in the 1920s and imposed a royal family of aliens (ie: "Hashemites from Saudi Arabia") on a country that had an overwhelmingly Palestinian population. After the 1948 war, the Palestinians could have had their own state on the West Bank, but no the Saudi-origin royal family of Jordan greedily grabbed it all for themselves.

Why does Israel get knocked all the time when a far larger chunk of Palestine is under Jordanian occupation to this day.

End the Jordanian occupation of Palestine East!

Where are those suicide bombers when you need them in Amman!

PS: No one has ever been able to answer these two questions:

1. Why was there no peace before 1967, when there was no "occupation"

2. Why was there no Palestinian state before 1967 when all of the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule?

quote: When 'self defense' includes bombing, for example, the nuclear facility of Iraq, who Israel was not at war with

Really? When was that peace treaty signed again? History says that Israel and Iraq have been at war since 1948, when Iraq illegally invaded the newly formed state of Israel. But like you said, why let facts get in the way etc etc.

quote: After the 1948 war, the Palestinians could have had their own state on the West Bank, but no the Saudi-origin royal family of Jordan greedily grabbed it all for themselves.

You are aware of the secret deal between Israel and Jordan's King Abdullah partitioning the UN-mandated Arab portion of Palestine between them, are you not, Stockholm? If not, it's time to brush up on your basic history.

The other Arab states' entry into the war was motivated as much by fear of Abdullah's grand regional ambitions as by opposition to the creation of Israel.

quote: End the Jordanian occupation of Palestine East!

Where are those suicide bombers when you need them in Amman!

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

quote: when Iraq illegally invaded the newly formed state of Israel.

Actually, if you wanna get picky, Peacey, I don't think the Iraqi armies ever actually "invaded Israel". They crossed into the Arab half of the UN partition plan, which is where most of the fighting actually took place, and into which Israel was asserting and intruding itself, expanding its borders at the expense of the Palestinians.

In other words, it was an immensely complicated situation with underhanded motivations and actions on all sides, bearing little resemblance to the simple-minded "Israel good, Arabs bad" philosophy the two of you relentlessly spew forth.

quote: Actually, if you wanna get picky, Peacey, I don't think the Iraqi armies ever actually "invaded Israel". They crossed into the Arab half of the UN partition plan,

So says the babble propaganda. But the fact is only Jordan restricted their military operations in 1948 to Arab territory. Maybe due to the secret deal between Golda Meir and King Abdullah handing the west bank over to Jordan?

posted 15 October 2003 09:37 AM
WD, your point is basically correct. The Palestinians have indeed been victims of oppressive imperialism from all sides since at least the turn of the century. I think it's past time that oppression ended.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged

beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 October 2003 11:12 AM
I dunno, worker_D. Every map I've ever seen of the various troop movements of the '48 war, including maps from Zionist sources, shows the Iraqis sticking pretty close to the Jordanian forces within what is now the West Bank. It was Egyptian and Syrian and Lebanese troops which actually entered the Jewish half of the partition. Maybe some Iraqi troops crossed the line into Israel proper, but most didn't as far as I can tell.

But we really are quibbling over trivialities now, aren't we? The obvious point, which Sarcasmo alludes to, is that none of the Arab armies had any particular interest in the well-being of the local Arab inhabitants, any more than Israel did. There's more than enough blame to go around for the miserable hand history dealt to the Palestinians.

Really? When was that peace treaty signed again? History says that Israel and Iraq have been at war since 1948, when Iraq illegally invaded the newly formed state of Israel. But like you said, why let facts get in the way etc etc.

Well, you apparently need a refresher in international law. Iraq handed over any and all territory under the control of it's troops to Jordan and withdrew its troops from forward positions, effectively ending their hostile posture. There does not need to be a formal suing for peace for a state of war to be considered over. It is sufficient that all claims to territory gained are relinquished and that active hostilities are stopped. As such, any claim that Israel was acting in a legal state of war when they destroyed the Tammuz facility is basically a crock of shit.

It is instructive that even Israeli diplomats and supporters did not try to pass this off at the UN or elsewhere, rather they relied on a rather loose interpretation of UN Article 51 which provides for self-defense. However, the notion of a anticipatory pre-emptory defense is advocated nowhere in international law.

Why does Israel get knocked all the time when a far larger chunk of Palestine is under Jordanian occupation to this day.

Wrong, as of the mid-1920's the Mandate authority did not consider the territory to the East of the Jordan to be 'Palestine'. It was Trans-Jordan, and was under an entirely different command and control. Moreover, it was not (as both the UN Partition Plan and British documents attest) considered when it came time to partition the land between Arabs and Jews on the west side of the Jordan.

This is just another form of the old ditty called, "Jordan IS Palestine." This piece of fiction is largely held by those who envision the ethnic cleansing (they euphemise it as 'transfer') of the Palestinians to surrounding Arab countries. Where this ditty is sung, Eretz Yisroel is rarely far behind...

quote: End the Jordanian occupation of Palestine East!

Where are those suicide bombers when you need them in Amman!

Actually, there was quite a conflict between Palestinian nationalists and the Jordanian government, not only over the treatment of the Palestinians under Jordanian occupation, but over the control of the government in Amman. Black September was the brutal culmination of this nationalist struggle with Jordan.

quote: 1. Why was there no peace before 1967, when there was no "occupation"

You are suffering from a kind of racism here, which likes to collectivise all 'Arabs' (including Palestinians) as being 'all the same'. It isn't true; there are various states, nations, and ethnicities, not to mention political, religious and other social movements operative in the 'Arab' world which make it very diverse. Moreover, your argument involves a contradiction - on the one hand, Jordan is blamed for it's actions which were in contravention of the interests of Palestinians, yet now, suddenly the interests/actions of all Arabs are one and the same.

quote: 2. Why was there no Palestinian state before 1967 when all of the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule?[/QB]

It matters not a whit to the matter of Israel's conduct throughout it's occupation of the same territory. The Palestinians wanted a state then, and they want one now. Israel is no less responsible for the horrors of their actions because of Hashemite territorial ambitions and policy.

quote: Well, you apparently need a refresher in international law. Iraq handed over any and all territory under the control of it's troops to Jordan and withdrew its troops from forward positions, effectively ending their hostile posture. There does not need to be a formal suing for peace for a state of war to be considered over. It is sufficient that all claims to territory gained are relinquished and that active hostilities are stopped.

Actually, it is quite true. There was no recourse in international law to defend the Tammuz attack as 'an act of war' because of unended hostilities with Iraq in 1948. I suppose that the British government (and others), who called the Tammuz attack "a grave breach of international law" were talking out of thier asses, then?

Iraqi troops withdrew from Palestine and command and control over the territory they held was given to Jordan, who then agreed to armistice.

The UNSC resolution on the armistice (S/1080, Novemeber 16,1948) holds the goals of said resolution to be:

A)The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;

B) Such withdrawal and reduction of their armed forces as will ensure the maintenance of the armistice during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine.

Since Egypt was not in control either of 1) Israeli territory or 2) areas in which an armistice would be required to demarcate boundaries etc. and had already withdrawn its troops, it was effectively already in compliance with the terms of the proposed armistice. There was simply no need for a suit for peace - it was covered under the armistice with Jordan. You will not find anyone in high-ranking circles of international law (lawyers or judges) who would accept your argument. I invite you to ask. I know the answer you will get, but hey, you can waste your time if you want.

1. It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line for the sector now held by Iraqi forces shall be as delineated on map 1 in annex I to this Agreement and marked A

Now, which part was untrue again, drone?

If you like, we can arrange to meet and I can hand your ass back to you in person...

posted 15 October 2003 06:55 PM
Did Israel confine it's operations -- both before and after the declaration of statehood -- to areas ceded for Jewish control?

All this talk about '5 Arab states attacking Israel' is so dubious because internecine hostilities within the Mandate started long before the declaration of statehood, and Israeli actions were taking place in areas not slated for Israeli control even before the declaration of Israeli independence. It's trying to have your cake and eat it too...

quote: Actually, it is quite true. There was no recourse in international law to defend the Tammuz attack as 'an act of war' because of unended hostilities with Iraq in 1948

Who's defending it as an act of war? Your original assertion, since proven wrong, is that Iraq and Israel were not at war. Iraq declared war on Israel, had their ass handed to them on a plate, picked up their toys and went home. They were the only one of the five invading Arab armies who did not negotiate a cessation of hostilities through the UN. Technically, they are still at war. Tellingly, when Iraq had their reactor renovated by the Israeli air force, their ambassador did not go crying to the UN with a Courage-esque whine of "but we weren't even at war!"

By the way, did Iraq declare war on Israel prior to the 1991 Scud attacks? Or did Hussein's government consider their nations already at war?

Who's defending it as an act of war? Your original assertion, since proven wrong,

You did. You said, "When was that peace treaty signed again? History says that Israel and Iraq have been at war since 1948." The clear implication is that the attack on Tammuz was legal as it came as part of (unended) hostilities going back to 1948. This assertion is yours, it is also false.

quote: Iraq declared war on Israel, had their ass handed to them on a plate, picked up their toys and went home. They were the only one of the five invading Arab armies who did not negotiate a cessation of hostilities through the UN.

Iraq didn't have to sue for peace cause they handed over the territory under their control and their right to negotiate to Jordan and communicated this intention to the UN negotiators. This is enshrined in the Jordanian-Israeli Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949, linked to above.

quote: Technically, they are still at war.

No - technically -- legally, in fact -- they ceded control of the territory gained in the war AND THEIR RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE to Jordan as enshrined in the Jordanian-Israeli Armistice Agreement, April 3,1949, linked to above. This act effectively ended hostilities with Israel. Please call your local international lawyer, if you know one and ask. Or, you could just do a little research on your own. I could point you in the right direction for either option, if you'd like. It is apparent that you could benefit from my experience in this area.

quote: By the way, did Iraq declare war on Israel prior to the 1991 Scud attacks? Or did Hussein's government consider their nations already at war?

No, the attacks were legally an act of aggressive warfare. Moreover, international law (please research the relevent documentation on your own) considered them to be unconnected to any other hostilities - i.e. 1948, the Tammuz attack. In response, the UNSC decided in 1992 to have Iraq pay reparations and compensation to Israel for the attacks out of the Compensation Fund which was part of the Sanctions regime elaborated subsidiarily to the General Armistice agreement which ended the Gulf War.

quote: Keep 'em spinnin' Courage!

I've got you spinnin' out of control, it would seem. Night is day by the looks of your arguments...

Masterful spin job. Uncle Joe would be proud. I guess by your reasoning the United States and North Korea aren't technically still at war huh?

I didn't threaten anyone. The case of North Korea and the U.S. is not relevent to the case of Iraq and Israel, specifically pertaining to the armistice after the 1948 war. It is not my 'reasoning' which draws this conclusion, but the black-letter law contained in the Jordanian-Israeli Armistice. I will again cite the relevent passage:

quote:Article VI1. It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line for the sector now held by Iraqi forces shall be as delineated on map 1 in annex I to this Agreement and marked A

3. The Armistice Demarcation Line provided for in paragraph 2 of this article shall be established in stages as follows, pending which the existing military lines may be maintained:

(a) In the area west of the road from Baqa to Jaljulia, and thence to the east of Kafr Qasim: within five weeks of the date on which this Armistice Agreement is signed;

(I) In the area of Wadi Ara north of the line from Baqa to Zubeiba: within seven weeks of the date on which this Armistice Agreement is signed;

(c) In all other areas of the Iraqi sector: within fifteen weeks of the date on which this Armistice Agreement is signed.

The terms of this passage clearly indicate that Iraq's claims are settled as part of this agreement. Moreover, it is instructive that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs echoes this position when it says: "Iraq did not enter into an armistice agreement with Israel but evacuated its forces from Palestine, and Jordanian forces took their place." This information (and all the Armistice Agreements) can be found at The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affiars website.